The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 440 of 2025 Deepak Kumar Sahu & others …. Petitioner(s) Mr. M.K. Rath, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Party(s)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.J. Mohanty, ASC Mr. B.K. Nayak, Advocate (O.P.No.2) CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. 01. 1. 2.
Decision
ORDER 12.02.2025 Heard. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in Rajgangpur P.S. Case No. 144 of 2013 came to be registered against the petitioners corresponding to Special G.R. Case No. 302 of 2013, pending in the court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge, Sundargarh for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 420/506/34 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. The petitioner no.1 has been absconded. Therefore, the trial qua him has been splited up. Petitioners no.2 and 3 are already facing the trial. Out of 38 Page 1 of 6 witnesses, six witnesses have been examined and six witnesses those who have been examined are not the vital witnesses of the prosecution. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the informant is the co-villager of the petitioners and the petitioner no.l (Deepak Kumar Sahu) had taken Rs. 1,20,000/- from him in order to give a land in Bhubaneswar. But as no land was provided to the informant, the informant had been to the house of the petitioners on 21.07.2013 and it is alleged that the petitioners abused the informant in filthy languages by aspersing his caste and also threatened to kill him. Hence, the FIR. 4. When the matter stood thus, the petitioners have entered into a settlement with the opposite party no.2 and on the basis of the settlement terms, the present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the entire prosecution. 5. All the three petitioners and opposite party no.2 the informant are present in Court and being represented and identified by their respective counsels. They have also filed self-attested copies of their Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are taken on record. The parties have filed a joint affidavit dated 31.01.2025 inter alia stating as under:- Page 2 of 6 the 2. That on 20.07.2013 the alleged incident took place out of quarrel due to some misunderstanding between the informant and the petitioners and thereafter the informant (Opp.party no.2) has lodged the FIR before the LLC. Rajgangpur P.S. basing on which the present case was registered against the petitioners. 3. That, after registration of the aforesaid case, the dispute informant have been amicably settled between (Opp.party No.2) and accused-petitioners at their locality in presence of the village gentries and well-wishers of both the parties. 4. That since the dispute among the parties have already amicably settled and all of them now are living peaceful and maintaining cordial relationship in their locality and if the proceeding is continuing it will be affected the good relationship between the parties. 5. That opp.party no.2 and the petitioners do not want to proceed with the case further since the dispute have been settled between the parties in their locality. 6. That the petitioners are ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand) only to the opp.party no.2 and the opp.party no.2 also agreed to accept the same in order to settle the dispute for ever. In the meantime the opp.party no.2 has received the total amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand) only from the petitioners. 7. That the opp.party no.2 has no objection if the Proceeding pending against the accused -petitioners is closed/ quashed by this Hon'ble Court.” Petitioner no.1 has also filed an additional affidavit separately inter alia stating as under:- “2. That the petitioners have filed the above mentioned case seeking to quash the criminal proceeding in Spl. G.R. Case No.302/2013, pending in the court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sundargarh. Page 3 of 6 3. That the criminal proceeding has been split up so far as petitioner no.1 (Deepak Kumar Sahu) is concerned vide order dated 20.11.2024 and has been numbered as Spl. G.R. Case No. 302 (A) of 2013-2022 and so far as petitioner no.2 and 3 are concerned the same has been numbered as Spl. G.R. Case No.302/153 of 2013-2022. 4. That the charges have been framed against the petitioner no.2 (Rupak Kumar Sahu @ Rupak) and petitioner Section 420/294/323/506/34 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PA) Act vide order dated 29.11.2024. under Sahu) (Uma no.3 5. That out of total 38 nos. of charge sheeted witnesses, six witnesses have been examined on 03.01.2025. PW.1 (Bani Sahu) has deposed that he has no allegation against Uma Sahu and Rupak Kumar Sahu, but has filed a complaint case before the learned JMFC, Rajgangpur against Deepak Kumar Sahu for dishonour of cheque. P.W.2 (Sashi Tanty) has deposed that he has no allegation against Uma Sahu and Rupak Sahu. But he along with his brother have field a case against Deepak Kumar Sahu in the court of learned JMFC, Rajgangpur for dishonour of cheque. PW3 (Birosh Banchhor) deposed that he does not know anything about the case and has also no allegation against Uma Sahu and Rupak Sahu. Deepak Sahu has returned all the money to him. PW4 (Aboth Bihari Ray) deposed that he does not know anything about the case. PW.5 (Jayadev Sahu) deposed that Deepak Sahu has given a cheque to him, but he has not presented the same in any bank. He has got no allegation against Rupak Sahu and Uma Sahu. P.W.6 (Subrat Kumar Rana) deposed that he does not know Rupak Sahu and Uma Sahu. 6. That the facts stated in above paragraph 1 to 5 are true to my own knowledge and true to the best of my information which I obtained from my personal sources.” 6. From the settlement terms, it appears that the disputed amount of Rs.1,20,000/- has already been paid by the petitioners to Page 4 of 6 the informant. The informant, who is present in Court, on query from the Court, states that she has received the amount and does not want to prosecute the petitioners. 7. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the State submits that since the parties have settled the dispute and file affidavit before this Court and also the disputed amount has already been paid to the informant, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceeding. 8. Regard being had to the allegation made by the opposite party no.2 against the petitioners and the fact that they have settled the dispute and filed affidavits before this Court, I am inclined to allow the present petition. Further, continuation of the present proceeding will not endure to the benefit to either parties and, therefore, in these circumstances subjecting the petitioners to rigors of the trial is destined to be futile exercise. The case of the petitioners is directly covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and B.S. Joshi & others vs. State of Haryana & another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675. 9. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in connection with Rajgangpur P.S. Case No. 144 of 2013 corresponding to Special Page 5 of 6 G.R. Case No. 302 of 2013, pending in the court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sundargarh is quashed. 10. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Ashok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Feb-2025 19:12:51 Page 6 of 6